Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science will never hold The Answer?

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 7:48:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Epistemic Law of Diminishing Returns:

The Philosopher I have as my avater propounds that actual knowledge merely stands as the logarithm of the available information.

Meaning the comparative growth of knowledge is inversely propositional to the volume of information already at hand, so that when information grows exponentially, knowledge will grow at a merely linear rate.

With that Epistemic Law in mind, those who affirm that with science one day "well have the answer" seem to assert their beliefs against an Epistemic Law.

So for those who think that we'll one day have the answer to everything, fail to see that such an answer is inhibited by everything itself. For with every new discovery comes more unanswered presuppositions ad infinitum.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:00:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 7:50:19 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
bumpa bumpa

Bump after 2 minutes? LOL.

I'm not sure anyone believes or asserts that science will attain any knowledge free from epistemic doubt.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:06:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 8:00:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 7:50:19 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
bumpa bumpa

Bump after 2 minutes? LOL.

I'm not sure anyone believes or asserts that science will attain any knowledge free from epistemic doubt.

Caffeine made me bump.

I think Nicholas Rescher's point isn't doubt, but rather the progression of science in general regarding diminishing or logarithmic returns in the scientific effort.

.. why are we up so early>
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:13:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 8:06:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:00:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 7:50:19 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
bumpa bumpa

Bump after 2 minutes? LOL.

I'm not sure anyone believes or asserts that science will attain any knowledge free from epistemic doubt.

Caffeine made me bump.

I think Nicholas Rescher's point isn't doubt, but rather the progression of science in general regarding diminishing or logarithmic returns in the scientific effort.

I'm not talking about Rescher's point. I'm talking about your point:

"With that Epistemic Law in mind, those who affirm that with science one day "well have the answer" seem to assert their beliefs against an Epistemic Law."

I don't believe anyone affirms that science will "have the answer" in a manner that violates this Epistemic Law. Well, there probably are a few. But not enough to constitute an audience for which this message would be an appropriate target.

Did you have any specific people in mind?


.. why are we up so early>

It isn't early.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:23:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 8:13:38 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:06:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:00:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 7:50:19 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
bumpa bumpa

Bump after 2 minutes? LOL.

I'm not sure anyone believes or asserts that science will attain any knowledge free from epistemic doubt.

Caffeine made me bump.

I think Nicholas Rescher's point isn't doubt, but rather the progression of science in general regarding diminishing or logarithmic returns in the scientific effort.

I'm not talking about Rescher's point. I'm talking about your point:

"With that Epistemic Law in mind, those who affirm that with science one day "well have the answer" seem to assert their beliefs against an Epistemic Law."

I don't believe anyone affirms that science will "have the answer" in a manner that violates this Epistemic Law. Well, there probably are a few. But not enough to constitute an audience for which this message would be an appropriate target.

Did you have any specific people in mind?

Well there seem to be quite a number:

Hawkings (the real one) says in his book that scientists now have the mantle for finding the answer, Kraus, Charles Jones a Rhodes scholar.. etc. They all affirm that science is omnipotent, Peter Atkins too, all of those who follow them, etc.

.. why are we up so early>

It isn't early.

I think if I were to say it's late, you'd think opposite.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:28:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 8:23:03 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:13:38 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:06:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:00:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 7:50:19 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
bumpa bumpa

Bump after 2 minutes? LOL.

I'm not sure anyone believes or asserts that science will attain any knowledge free from epistemic doubt.

Caffeine made me bump.

I think Nicholas Rescher's point isn't doubt, but rather the progression of science in general regarding diminishing or logarithmic returns in the scientific effort.

I'm not talking about Rescher's point. I'm talking about your point:

"With that Epistemic Law in mind, those who affirm that with science one day "well have the answer" seem to assert their beliefs against an Epistemic Law."

I don't believe anyone affirms that science will "have the answer" in a manner that violates this Epistemic Law. Well, there probably are a few. But not enough to constitute an audience for which this message would be an appropriate target.

Did you have any specific people in mind?

Well there seem to be quite a number:

Hawkings (the real one) says in his book that scientists now have the mantle for finding the answer, Kraus, Charles Jones a Rhodes scholar.. etc. They all affirm that science is omnipotent, Peter Atkins too, all of those who follow them, etc.

I look forward to hearing what they have to say about your post, then!


.. why are we up so early>

It isn't early.

I think if I were to say it's late, you'd think opposite.

I think you aren't in a position to predict my thoughts.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:33:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 8:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:23:03 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:13:38 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:06:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:00:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 7:50:19 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
bumpa bumpa

Bump after 2 minutes? LOL.

I'm not sure anyone believes or asserts that science will attain any knowledge free from epistemic doubt.

Caffeine made me bump.

I think Nicholas Rescher's point isn't doubt, but rather the progression of science in general regarding diminishing or logarithmic returns in the scientific effort.

I'm not talking about Rescher's point. I'm talking about your point:

"With that Epistemic Law in mind, those who affirm that with science one day "well have the answer" seem to assert their beliefs against an Epistemic Law."

I don't believe anyone affirms that science will "have the answer" in a manner that violates this Epistemic Law. Well, there probably are a few. But not enough to constitute an audience for which this message would be an appropriate target.

Did you have any specific people in mind?

Well there seem to be quite a number:

Hawkings (the real one) says in his book that scientists now have the mantle for finding the answer, Kraus. They all affirm that science is omnipotent, Peter Atkins too, all of those who follow them, etc.

I look forward to hearing what they have to say about your post, then!
.. why are we up so early>

It isn't early.

I think if I were to say it's late, you'd think opposite.

I think you aren't in a position to predict my thoughts.

It's late.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:34:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 8:33:08 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
It isn't early.

I think if I were to say it's late, you'd think opposite.

I think you aren't in a position to predict my thoughts.

It's late.

Ok.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:59:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 8:34:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/12/2012 8:33:08 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
It isn't early.

I think if I were to say it's late, you'd think opposite.

I think you aren't in a position to predict my thoughts.

It's late.

Ok.

hahaha
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:45:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know that Hawkings and Krauss have been making some bold statements lately (though I haven't read their latest books). However, I don't think that any have said that science is on the cusp of revealing everything there is to know about everything. If anyone has said that the scientific method is capable of achiving, for humans, omniscence then I would be interested in reading that passage.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 12:06:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think this is a strawman that the religious tend to inadvertently make. Religion does make the claim for itself that it contains the answers to everything. The religious naturally assume then that people who make earnest attempts at understanding the world would make equally arrogant claims. What keeps scientists from making such claims is that they have to back them up. Religious people aren't expected to do that (at least when us pesky atheist aren't around).
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 12:12:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I basically agree on both accounts vb.

It also depends on whether or not we are talking about a scientific realist or a scientific instrumentalist. While both would probably still acknowledge the unfortunate consequence of diminishing returns, the realist would probably say that this is a hurdle we'll just have to overcome if we are to get closer to truth whereas the instrumentalist probably wouldn't care.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 1:07:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: There are Great justifications for why science it successful, I am just saying most people don't know them. Part of the problem is "Language Games" Theory, and "physical Positivism". This causes people confuse the definition of 'words' as just another set of "physical Symbols"(hint). By accepting this form of reasoning, they are in a trapped in a world or circularty.. and around and around they go. You can't lead them to think out of it or they will get hostile.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 7:48:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Epistemic Law of Diminishing Returns:

The Philosopher I have as my avater propounds that actual knowledge merely stands as the logarithm of the available information.

Meaning the comparative growth of knowledge is inversely propositional to the volume of information already at hand, so that when information grows exponentially, knowledge will grow at a merely linear rate.

With that Epistemic Law in mind, those who affirm that with science one day "well have the answer" seem to assert their beliefs against an Epistemic Law.

So for those who think that we'll one day have the answer to everything, fail to see that such an answer is inhibited by everything itself. For with every new discovery comes more unanswered presuppositions ad infinitum.

So Jesus isn't the answer after all.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 7:53:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 11:45:59 AM, vbaculum wrote:
I know that Hawkings and Krauss have been making some bold statements lately (though I haven't read their latest books). However, I don't think that any have said that science is on the cusp of revealing everything there is to know about everything. If anyone has said that the scientific method is capable of achiving, for humans, omniscence then I would be interested in reading that passage.

See Peter Atkins for that. He leads Scientism.

Even if Krauss, etc haven't explicitly admitted their scientism they presuppose it in most of their arguments against theism.

The epistemic law undercuts such a presupposition.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 7:58:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 12:06:30 PM, vbaculum wrote:
I think this is a strawman that the religious tend to inadvertently make. Religion does make the claim for itself that it contains the answers to everything. The religious naturally assume then that people who make earnest attempts at understanding the world would make equally arrogant claims. What keeps scientists from making such claims is that they have to back them up. Religious people aren't expected to do that (at least when us pesky atheist aren't around).

Your comment is pointed in the wrong direction. The only impetus a Christian, say, has for 'backing up' his claims to know God, is in order to make a defense for the hope of eternal life with God. It's not to advance human understanding of our world... that sort of just follows as a by-product in addition to less spiritual understandings.

Like Anselm said, ours is a faith seeking understanding. So the Christian celebrates the human achievement of science.

The atheist isn't pesky for us, in fact they give us an opportunity to share our hope, and better refine the articulation of our defense. Moreover, the atheist takes up the same mantle we have in a polemic against other false claims of other religions.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:06:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 12:12:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
I basically agree on both accounts vb.

It also depends on whether or not we are talking about a scientific realist or a scientific instrumentalist. While both would probably still acknowledge the unfortunate consequence of diminishing returns, the realist would probably say that this is a hurdle we'll just have to overcome if we are to get closer to truth whereas the instrumentalist probably wouldn't care.

Scientific realism / anti-realism isn't presupposed in Rescher's Erotetic propagation Law.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:10:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:53:10 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/12/2012 7:48:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Epistemic Law of Diminishing Returns:

The Philosopher I have as my avater propounds that actual knowledge merely stands as the logarithm of the available information.

Meaning the comparative growth of knowledge is inversely propositional to the volume of information already at hand, so that when information grows exponentially, knowledge will grow at a merely linear rate.

With that Epistemic Law in mind, those who affirm that with science one day "well have the answer" seem to assert their beliefs against an Epistemic Law.

So for those who think that we'll one day have the answer to everything, fail to see that such an answer is inhibited by everything itself. For with every new discovery comes more unanswered presuppositions ad infinitum.

So Jesus isn't the answer after all.

Erotetic propagation refers to knowledge as the log of information; so that as information increases, knowledge merely grows at a linear rate. No claim whatever on the efficacy of Christ's impact on human existentialism.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 9:00:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 7:53:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 11:45:59 AM, vbaculum wrote:
I know that Hawkings and Krauss have been making some bold statements lately (though I haven't read their latest books). However, I don't think that any have said that science is on the cusp of revealing everything there is to know about everything. If anyone has said that the scientific method is capable of achiving, for humans, omniscence then I would be interested in reading that passage.

See Peter Atkins for that. He leads Scientism.

According to what I can find, he isn't living up very well to his leadership position.

From a Christian apologetics site (http://www.bethinking.org...):

He feels that the idea of an uncaused first cause is not "altogether satisfying", but concedes (surprisingly) that it might, of course, be correct. He then asks whether science has anything better to say. He acknowledges that science could have nothing to say about the situation before the universe actually came into existence. The only options therefore would be to admit either that its origins are beyond human comprehension or to accept the "existence and incomprehensible activity of a creator".

Even if Krauss, etc haven't explicitly admitted their scientism they presuppose it in most of their arguments against theism.

I wasn't talking about scientism (as defined by Wikipedia). But arguing against theism doesn't imply scientism. That's a false dichotomy.


The epistemic law undercuts such a presupposition.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 9:48:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 9:00:09 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/12/2012 7:53:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/12/2012 11:45:59 AM, vbaculum wrote:
I know that Hawkings and Krauss have been making some bold statements lately (though I haven't read their latest books). However, I don't think that any have said that science is on the cusp of revealing everything there is to know about everything. If anyone has said that the scientific method is capable of achiving, for humans, omniscence then I would be interested in reading that passage.

See Peter Atkins for that. He leads Scientism.

According to what I can find, he isn't living up very well to his leadership position.

From a Christian apologetics site (http://www.bethinking.org...):

He feels that the idea of an uncaused first cause is not "altogether satisfying", but concedes (surprisingly) that it might, of course, be correct. He then asks whether science has anything better to say. He acknowledges that science could have nothing to say about the situation before the universe actually came into existence. The only options therefore would be to admit either that its origins are beyond human comprehension or to accept the "existence and incomprehensible activity of a creator".

Atkins is quoted in a earlier debate with craig saying science is omnipotent, he may have changed his position. Nevertheless there are still folks who consider science as the be all end all.

Even if Krauss, etc haven't explicitly admitted their scientism they presuppose it in most of their arguments against theism.

I wasn't talking about scientism (as defined by Wikipedia). But arguing against theism doesn't imply scientism. That's a false dichotomy.

I understand arguing against theism doesn't always imply scientism. But the ones who support their arguments with claims of an omnipotent future science ("just wait & see until what science has to say about it... then we can make our decision, blah blah"-- I've hear it countless times actually.)

So I never presented a dichotomy between the two, that's a red-herring.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:16:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not... If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it — that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers... then that's the way it is. But either way there's Nature and she's going to come out the way She is. So therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn't predecide what it is we're looking for only to find out more about it. Now you ask: "Why do you try to find out more about it?" If you began your investigation to get an answer to some deep philosophical question, you may be wrong. It may be that you can't get an answer to that particular question just by finding out more about the character of Nature. But that's not my interest in science; my interest in science is to simply find out about the world and the more I find out the better it is, I like to find out...
-Richard Feynman
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

Science is a series of casual descriptions and basic interpretations of what is largely unexplainable and undefinable. We use relativities and uncertain variables, basing them on percentages and averages, in order to come to what we interpret might be reality. The truth is probably so simple, so mundane, yet so beyond out comprehension, that it would truly show what a fallacy science is if it were ever ascertained.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

If there are limits to our perception then we can't make any claims to what exists beyond that limitation, including the claim that anything exists beyond it.


Science is a series of casual descriptions and basic interpretations of what is largely unexplainable and undefinable. We use relativities and uncertain variables, basing them on percentages and averages, in order to come to what we interpret might be reality. The truth is probably so simple, so mundane, yet so beyond out comprehension, that it would truly show what a fallacy science is if it were ever ascertained.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:41:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

If there are limits to our perception then we can't make any claims to what exists beyond that limitation, including the claim that anything exists beyond it.

We've clearly found evidence of forces and matter that we cannot physically detect, but can infer through force interaction and weak estimations.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:44:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:41:18 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

If there are limits to our perception then we can't make any claims to what exists beyond that limitation, including the claim that anything exists beyond it.

We've clearly found evidence of forces and matter that we cannot physically detect, but can infer through force interaction and weak estimations.

All physical detection is an inference through force interaction.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:44:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:44:02 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:18 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

If there are limits to our perception then we can't make any claims to what exists beyond that limitation, including the claim that anything exists beyond it.

We've clearly found evidence of forces and matter that we cannot physically detect, but can infer through force interaction and weak estimations.

All physical detection is an inference through force interaction.

However, some of that detection is specialized and direct -- such as the detection of photons by ocular nerves. This is separate from, say, the detection of microwave radiation.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:50:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:44:58 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:44:02 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:41:18 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

If there are limits to our perception then we can't make any claims to what exists beyond that limitation, including the claim that anything exists beyond it.

We've clearly found evidence of forces and matter that we cannot physically detect, but can infer through force interaction and weak estimations.

All physical detection is an inference through force interaction.

However, some of that detection is specialized and direct -- such as the detection of photons by ocular nerves. This is separate from, say, the detection of microwave radiation.

True. Not sure what that matters. Perhaps you can elucidate.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:24:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

This is my view. However, I think scientific knowledge will eventually allow us to transform our human cognition to such an extent that it is conceivable that, in the future, humans (or what ever we have turned ourselves into) will be able to understand the ever more penetrating discoveries we make.

In other words, I don't think humans will be forever trapped in our limited physical brains. We will eventually develop computer technologies that will allow us to transcend our current conception of reality. And that may only be the first layer of the onion.

Then, we will eventually understand everything. The only question is whether that will take a finite or infinite amount of time.


If there are limits to our perception then we can't make any claims to what exists beyond that limitation, including the claim that anything exists beyond it.



Science is a series of casual descriptions and basic interpretations of what is largely unexplainable and undefinable. We use relativities and uncertain variables, basing them on percentages and averages, in order to come to what we interpret might be reality. The truth is probably so simple, so mundane, yet so beyond out comprehension, that it would truly show what a fallacy science is if it were ever ascertained.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:56:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:39:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:20:32 AM, Ren wrote:
Science will never hold the answer, because humans are too limited to possibly perceive all there is to understand.

If there are limits to our perception then we can't make any claims to what exists beyond that limitation, including the claim that anything exists beyond it.

Great point! Too bad that it was never really addressed.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.